Evaluation of Highway Signs With Truss Supports

Michael R. DelGrego, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil & Environmental

Engineering, University Of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269.

John T. DeWolf, Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University Of

Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.

Jun Yang, Structural Engineering, GM2 Associates, Glastonbury, CT, 06033; formerly Graduate
Research Assistant, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University Of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269.

Corresponding Author: John T. DeWolf, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,

University Of Connecticut, Box U-2037, 261 Glenbrook Road, Storrs, CT 06269; Phone: 860-
486-5023; Fax: 860-486-2298; Email: John.DeWolf@uconn.edu.

Re-Submission Date: November 15, 2002.

Total number of words, including 2 tables and 8 figures: 7133

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 ABSTRACT
This paper reports on a study of overhead bridge highway sign structures supported by
two vertical trusses. Recent changes in the sign support specification show an increase in design
wind pressure affecting the serviceability of the vertical trusses. When the Connecticut DOT
reviewed existing sign structures using the revised wind pressures, many were found to be
inadequate, even though they have performed acceptably over the years. As a result of the new
design provisions, a program was begun to reinforce the sign supports, which involved adding
stiffeners to the vertical truss chords. An initial review of the, then, current design procedures,
using estimated effective length factors, indicated that use of a more rigorous stability analysis
could show that many of the existing vertical trusses had sufficient strength to meet the new
wind loading without the expensive field modifications. This was achieved through more
accurate calculations of the effective lengths for the truss chords. The study reported herein was
undertaken to develop the software needed for the more rigorous stability analysis, review
alternative approaches for strengthening the trusses when the improved stability analysis is not
sufficient, and revise the overall design approach and design software used by the DOT. The
results presented in this study can be used in both the review of existing signs and the design of
new signs.

INTRODUCTION
As a result of recent changes in the AASHTO Sign Provisions for wind loads (1), some
existing signs that have performed satisfactorily, no longer meet the revised requirements. The
State of Connecticut has found that this has been a major problem for trusses supporting
overhead signs. These supports are primarily loaded by wind, and as a consequence of the new,
higher wind load requirements, the State has found that many of these sign supports have
required modifications.

A typical truss support for signs in Connecticut is shown in Figure 1. The trusses are normally
made from round tubular elements. One of the connections of the diagonals to the truss chord is
shown in Figure 2. One option that has been used to upgrade older truss supports in order to
meet the new specification wind requirements is to use plate elements to stiffen the vertical
chords, as shown in Figure 3. This has required considerable expense, and as a result,
researchers at the University Of Connecticut were asked to review the design process and the
typical details to see if there is a way to reduce, or eliminate, the need for this expensive
modification.

A review of the literature has produced similar studies of sign supports. Cook, Bloomquist and
Agosta (2), Gray, Wang, Hamilton and Puckett (3), Hartnagel and Baker (4) and Kashar, Nester,
Jones, Hairi and Friezner (5) have reported on signs that have collapsed. Alampali (6) has
reviewed design loads on signs. Cook, Bloomquist and Agosta (1), Johns and Dexter (7) and
Cook, Bloomquist and Kalagian (8) have looked as the influence of truck induced wind loads.
Kaczinski, Dexter and Van Dien (9), Cook, Bloomquist and Kalajian (8) and Gray, Wang,
Hamilton and Puckett (3) looked at fatigue problems. Fouad, Calvert and Nunez (10) have noted
that the behavior and strengths of steel tubes used in sign supports is one of the many areas in
need of research. The authors are unaware of any studies addressing stability problems for truss
supported signs under wind loading. Since there has been an increase in the specification

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 requirements for wind loads (1), efforts that will provide more accurate, less conservative
designs are felt to be especially worthwhile.

This paper reviews the work conducted at the University of Connecticut to improve the design
process and make recommendations for improvements as required to the signs now in place in
Connecticut. The results from this study have been used to show that many signs do not require
stiffening. Additionally, where there are needs for modifications, there is often a less expensive
alternative than the use of stiffeners.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this section, the changes in the wind loading requirements from the applicable
specification and the general design approach are first discussed. This is followed with a
discussion of the stability behavior. As will be shown, changes in the stability analysis, and as
necessary, improvements in the sign support connections can be used to increase the stability
strength. The result is that many existing signs meet the new AASHTO design provisions
without the need for expensive stiffeners.

AASHTO Provisions

Wind Load Provisions

In 2001, AASHTO released the fourth edition of “Standard Specifications for Structural
Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries and Traffic Signals (1).” This Specification was
updated based on the most recent state-of-the-art information for the design and use of structural
supports (AASHTO 2001). Two of the most important updates in the latest specification were
the changes in the wind pressure equation and the insertion of a new isotach map.

The editions up to 1994 used a different equation than the 2001 edition for estimating wind
pressure. Below is a comparison of the two equations.

The old AASHTO equation for the wind pressure was:

Pz = 0.00256 (1.3V)2 CdCh (psf)

where:
V = Fastest-mile design wind speed from the isotach map
Cd = Drag Coefficient
Ch = Coefficient for height measured above ground

The AASHTO 2001 equation is:

Pz = 0.00256 K z GV 2 I r C d (psf)
where:
V = 3-second-gust wind speed from isotach map
Cd = Drag coefficient
Kz = Coefficient for height measured above ground
Ir = Wind importance factor
G = Gust effect factor, determined from an equation

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 The Wind Importance Factor equals 1.0 when a recurrence interval of 50 years is chosen. This
corresponds to the recurrence interval used for the isotach map in the 2001 edition.

Rearranging the present equation gives:

Pz = 0.00256 G V 2 I r Cd K z

Comparing the past and present equations, assuming Cd is the same in both equations, Kz equals
Ch, Ir = 1.0, and G = 1.14, as determined from the Specification, shows that the difference is in
the wind speed portion. The old equation is based on (1.3 V)2 and the new equation is based on
(1.14 V2), with different specified values of V.

The design wind speed, V, in the past editions of the code, was the Fastest-mile wind speed.
This speed is the peak wind speed averaged for 1 mile of wind passing at a point. In the
AASHTO 2001 edition, the wind speed, V, is the 3-second-gust wind speed, which is the
average wind speed measured over an interval of three seconds.

According to the AASHTO 2001 edition of the code, the 3-second-gust wind speed is
approximately 22% faster than the fastest-mile wind speed. Using this fact and inserting (1.22
V) into the past equation will produce the same exact wind pressure as inserting (1.0 V) into the
AASHTO 2001 equation. This change in the equation for wind pressure led to new wind speed
maps, using the 3-second-gust wind speed.

In the previous editions of the code, the fastest-mile wind speed for Connecticut was 80 mph.
The AASHTO 2001 map now shows a 3-Second-Gust wind speed of 120 mph along the coast
and 110 mph for the inland portions of Connecticut. Inserting 80 mph into the old wind pressure
equation and 110 mph and 120 mph into the AASHTO equation shows an increase between 27%
and 51% in wind pressure, depending upon the location in Connecticut of the sign support.

Sign Support Provisions

The truss sign support shown in Figure 4 is typical of those of interest in this project. It
consists of vertical columns, or chords, that are continuous and diagonal members that can be
either pinned or rigidly connected to the chords. The chords are made from larger tubes and the
diagonals are typically made from smaller tubes. The base of the two vertical truss chords can be
either pinned or fixed to the foundation, though in Connecticut they are normally fixed to
provide stability in the plane of the overall sign structure. The highway signs are supported on a
three-dimensional horizontal truss that is connected to the tops of the support trusses.

The truss sign supports must be evaluated for gravity and wind loads. These loads consist of the
gravity and wind loads from the horizontal truss and the signs, applied to the top of the support
truss, and the smaller distributed truss gravity and wind loads applied directly to the sign support
truss. Two design wind patterns typically govern in the design, as specified by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1). They are: (1) 100% of the wind
load in the direction perpendicular to the sign face, combined with 20% of this wind load applied
in the direction parallel to the sign face; (2) 60% wind load in the direction perpendicular to the

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 sign face, combined with 30% of the wind load in the direction parallel to the sign face. The
wind load on the sign panel is defined as the wind load acting normal to the sign face. This
means that the transverse components (i.e. 20% in load case (1) and 30% in load case (2)) are
significant loads that are applied perpendicular to the support columns. There are also
requirements for inclusion of ice loads and fatigue, but the focus of this paper is the proper
treatment of wind loads combined with the gravity loads.

The AASHTO Specification design requirements for the combination of wind and gravity load in
the truss chords are based on interaction equations. These are used for the required design wind
patterns, as discussed above. The approach involves combining the effects of axial load,
moment and shear to determine values of CSR, which are combined-stress ratios. The design is
acceptable if all applicable CSR values are equal to or smaller than 1.0. There are three
equations given for determining the CSR values. The first two apply where the axial load is large
and the third applies when it is small. The equations are as follows:
2
fa + fb +  fv  = CSR
0.6Fy Fb  Fv 
2
fa + fb 
+

 fv 
= CSR

Fa  fa   Fv 
1 -  Fb
 Fe' 
2
fa + fb +  fv  = CSR
Fa Fb  Fv 

where: fa = Actual axial stress

Fa = Allowable axial stress
fb = Actual bending stress
Fb = Allowable bending stress
fv = Actual shear stress
Fv = Allowable shear stress
Fe’ = Euler buckling stress

Stability Behavior
The gravity load results in axial forces in the support columns, and it is essentially
uniform along the full height (there is a slight variation due to the gravity load resulting from the
truss self-weight). The wind load also translates to axial loads in the two support columns.
Since it is applied horizontally, the resulting axial forces vary along the chord lengths, with the
greatest axial force occurring in the lower part of the chord. Present design practice, using
simplified stability assumptions, is based on chord axial forces from both the gravity and wind
loads that are constant, leading to conservative designs.

These design assumptions are discussed below for the in-plane behavior and the out-of-plane
behavior, noting how they can be modified for a more accurate, less conservative design. For
normal design, the axial compressive strengths are those determined from the effective length
approach, i.e. where the actual column lengths are modified by multiplying the length by K, the

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 effective length factor. The value of K accounts for the end conditions and the possibility of
sidesway.

In-Plane Stability Behavior In the current design approach, the stability behavior assumes that
there is no sidesway for the cantilevered truss for in-plane displacements. The effective length
factors are based on the assumption that all joints are pinned, ignoring the continuity in the
columns and the fact that in many trusses, the diagonal elements are rigidly connected to the
columns. Thus, the effective lengths of the individual elements are assumed equal to the element
lengths between the connections, with K equal to 1.0.

These current design assumptions simplify the actual behavior. Realistically, diagonals are much
smaller than the columns, and the result is that there is some sidesway, which increases the
effective length. Additionally, the force in the chord is not the same in all segments. Most of the
axial compressive force in the chord is due to wind, and thus the axial forces are greater in the
lower segments than in the higher segments. The effect is that the upper chord segments brace
the more highly loaded lower chord segments, resulting in decreased chord effective lengths.
Also, when the diagonals are rigidly connected to the chords, they can provide additional
restraint for the chord segments, reducing K further. However, in most support trusses, the
diagonal sizes are much smaller than the chords, and thus there is little stiffening from the
diagonals that are rigidly connected to the chords.

Therefore, corrections to the stability behavior should address the variable force in the chords
and the possibility of sidesway.

Out-of-Plane Stability Behavior The out-of-plane behavior is based on the truss chords acting
as columns extending from the base to the horizontal trusses. Sidesway is definitely not
prevented in this direction. Typically, these chords are fixed against rotation at the bases. If the
connection between the vertical supporting truss and the horizontal truss supporting the signs are
pinned connections, the chords in the out-of-plane direction behave as cantilever columns with
an effective length equal to twice the column length, i.e. K equals 2.0, assuming that the axial
force in the chord is constant. If the connection at the top of the vertical chords is able to fully
transfer moment to the horizontal truss, the chord is approximately equivalent to a column with
both ends fixed and subject to sidesway. This is because the horizontal truss is much stiffer than
the supporting trusses, which are bending in their respective out-of-plane directions. In this case,
the effective length factor, K, would be equal to 1.0 if the axial force along the chords is
constant. In the actual truss sign support, the axial force is not constant, and thus the effective
length should be reduced.

For in-plane behavior, the current design assumptions overly simplify the actual behavior
because they do not consider the fact that a large part of the axial force in the vertical chord
elements is not constant. A more accurate stability analysis can use this fact to derive more
realistic K values.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 STABILITY ANALYSIS
The first segment in this study involved developing a better stability analysis to account
for the variations in the truss chord forces, the end connections and sidesway. This work (11 and
12) produced software for a system buckling analysis based on the full structural system.

The system buckling analysis is based on an eigenvalue analysis of the entire structural system,
first developed by Hartz (13). This type of analysis seeks the lowest set of the critical loads for
which the determinant of the global structure stiffness matrix [K] vanishes, i.e.,

det[ K ] = 0 (1)

This matrix is made of the element stiffness matrices, modified to include the first-order elastic
stiffness matrix [ke], and the geometric stiffness matrix, [kg]. Thus,

[ k ] = [ k e ] + [k g ] (2)

The element bending stiffness matrix is developed from the slope-deflection equations and the
geometric stiffness matrix is based on the axial loads.

The formulation of the geometric stiffness matrix must be based on an assumed displacement
function. The polynomial displacement function developed by Hartz has been used in this
investigation. The approximation requires that the member must be divided into multiple
elements to achieve acceptable results.

This method then produces a stability analysis that can be used to determine effective length
factors, K, based on the critical element in the truss support. This is one of the lower two truss
chord elements, depending on the direction of the wind loading.

The approach for steel frame stability analysis developed in this study is applicable to both in-
plane and out-of-plane buckling. The system buckling approach provides for consideration of
diagonal members that are either pinned to the vertical chord member or rigidly attached to the
chord member, continuity and different load combinations. The approach is described in more
detail in a report by Yang and DeWolf (12).

DESIGN EXAMPLE
The sign used to discuss the behavior and demonstrate how modifications can be made to
meet the new specification provisions is shown in Figure 5, and the truss support is shown in
Figure 6. This sign is typical of those used in Connecticut. The chords are made from 10 inch
tubes with a wall thickness of 0.365 inches, and the diagonals are made from 3.5 inch tubes with
a wall thickness of 0.188 inches. The basic sign was sized to meet the old specification
requirements, using the lower wind pressures.

General Stability Behavior

The advantages of using the system stability approach to determine effective length
factors, K, are shown in Table 1. This table is based on the sign shown in Figures 5 and 6, with

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 different supporting chord sizes, based on the available 8 and 10 inch tubes. The K values
shown for the chords are based on using the full column length to obtain an effective length.

The results for the diagonals, which do not govern in the overall design, are not shown in this
table. The use of the system buckling analysis for in-plane behavior has shown that the actual K
values for the diagonals are 1.0 if the diagonals are pinned to the columns, as expected. The
values decrease to approximately 0.5 for diagonals rigidly connected to the columns. This is
because the column elements are typically much larger than the diagonals. Thus, this is
approximately the same as fixing the ends of the diagonals. This is discussed in more detail in
the report by DeWolf and Yang (12).

For in-plane behavior, table 1 gives K values for the chords that are based on the full chord
length. The normal design approach has been to use a K value of 1.0 with the largest length
between diagonals. A direct comparison between the two K values is then not correct. The
research has shown however that the effective length, equal to K times the length, obtained from
the system stability analysis is often larger than the value previously used in the normal design
approach. This is because there is some sidesway. The result is that the normal assumptions
used in the design of these columns can produce an unconservative design for in-plane behavior.
Fortunately, as has been demonstrated by DeWolf and Yang (12), the out-of-plane behavior
governs, and thus the final design is not unconservative.

As shown in Table 1 for out-of-plane behavior, the values of the effective length factor, K,
computed for the truss chord in the out-of-plane direction are considerably smaller than the
values of 2.0 used when the top is pinned and 1.0 when the top is rigidly connected to the
horizontal truss. The effective length factors are reduced by as much as 28 percent when the tops
are pinned to the horizontal truss and as much as 13 percent when the tops are rigidly connected
to the horizontal truss. Other sign examples studied in this research have produced even higher
reductions in K (13). Since the out-of-plane behavior generally governs, the improvement in the
design strength is significant. This demonstrates the benefit of including the variable chord axial
force in the stability considerations.

Table 1 also shows that designing the connections between the supporting truss and horizontal
sign truss so they are able to transfer moment substantially lowers the effective length, increasing
the column stability strength. This requires that the connections between the horizontal truss and
the vertical support trusses have sufficient moment capacity so the angle between the trusses
remains at right angles. Since the lower and upper chords in the horizontal truss are both
connected to the vertical support trusses, this should not be difficult to do.

A review of typical signs in Connecticut has shown that U-bolts have been used for the
connection between the supporting truss and the horizontal sign truss. A photo of the connection
between the vertical supporting truss and the horizontal three-dimensional truss is shown in
Figure 7. Figure 8 shows one of these connections using the U-Bolt. Experience has shown that
over time slippages in this type of connection is inevitable. Thus the present connection does not
reliably provide adequate rigidity to develop moment transfer. Modifying the connection so that
slippage is prevented can result in a higher stability strength.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Use of System Stability Analysis in Design Example
The design example given in Figures 5 and 6 is now used to show the benefits of using
the system stability analysis to determine more realistic effective length factors, K. The chord
size is based on the governing lower truss chord segment, where the axial force from the wind is
largest. The basic design requires that the applicable CSR values be equal to or smaller than one.
Table 2 shows the governing K values and the maximum CSR value for the different design
cases. The first four cases are based on having pinned connections between the supporting truss
and the horizontal truss. The first three cases are based on the normally assumed K value of 2.0,
i.e. with a pinned connection at the top of the supporting truss. The fourth case uses the system
stability approach to determine a more realistic K value. The fifth case is based on using a
moment-resistant connection at the top of the supporting truss.

Case 1 - Original Design, Old Specification Wind Load

The wind pressure that is applied to the sign faces, determined from the 1994
Specification, is 25.8 psf, for the coastal areas in Connecticut. As is shown, the chord size
results in a maximum CSR value of 0.97, and the design is satisfactory.

Case 2 - Original Design, New Specification Wind Load

The wind pressure applied to the sign faces, based on the new requirements for the
coastal areas in Connecticut is 39.0 psf. The maximum CSR value is now 2.00, and as expected,
the design is now unacceptable.

Case 3 - Original Design with Added Stiffener, New Specification Wind Load
The approach that has been used in Connecticut to meet the larger required wind pressure
has been to weld stiffeners to the chords, as shown in Figure 3. These are typically 1 by 2 inch
bar elements. The prime cost in attaching these is the labor cost. The CSR value is now 0.71,
and the sign is more than adequate for the new Specification.

Case 4 – Original Design, New Specification Wind Load with System Stability Approach
The system stability approach results in a K value of 1.44 for the pinned case, as opposed
to the normally assumed value of 2.00. As is shown, the CSR value is now 1.01. Accepting a
value that is 1 percent above the maximum, the original sign now meets the new specification
without the need for stiffening.

Case 5 – Original Design, New Specification Wind Load with System Stability Approach and
Moment-Resistant Connection at Top of Supporting Trusses
The resulting maximum CSR value equal to 0.99 shows that the sign is slightly over-
designed. Review of the detailed calculations shows that the increase in the moment from the
dead load due to the change in the joint rigidity approximately balances out the benefits from
modifying the connection. DeWolf and Yang (12) have shown that for other signs, the benefits
of using moment resistant joints at the top of the support trusses can significantly increase the
capacity. Thus for signs that do not satisfy the new Specification requirements using the revised
K values, modifying this connection should be studied before welding stiffeners to the chords.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has developed design material that can be used in the evaluation of existing
truss-supported signs, as well as in the design of new signs. The initial phase of the work has
provided a revised stability approach that can be used to more accurately determine the effective
lengths in the truss supports. This has shown that the actual design capacity is often greater than
previously determined using simplified effective lengths. The revised stability approach was
used in the review of existing sign supports, required by the increased wind pressures in the new
support specification. In many signs, this will eliminate the need for expensive field
modifications that were begun prior to this study, which involved welding stiffeners to the truss
chords. The study has also shown that when strengthening is needed, there are often less
expensive ways to modify the signs than attaching stiffeners to the chords. The final phase of the
study has involved a review of the overall design approach used by the Connecticut DOT, both
to make modifications required by the new support specification and to incorporate the changes
developed in this study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research study was undertaken to provide the Connecticut Department of
Transportation with an improved design approach for the evaluation of the strength of truss
supported highway signs. The work has been sponsored by the Joint Highway Research
Advisory Council of the University of Connecticut and the Connecticut Department of
Transportation. It was carried out in the Connecticut Transportation Institute of the University
Of Connecticut.

REFERENCES

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard

Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic
Signals. AASHTO, Washington, 1998 (further updated in 2001).
2. Cook, R.A., D. Bloomquist, and A. Agosta. Truck-Induced Dynamic Winds Loads on
Variable-Message Signs. TRB, Report 1594, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1997, pp. 187-193.
3. Gray, B., P. Wang, H.R. Hamilton, and J.A. Puckett. Traffic Signal Structure Research at
the University of Wyoming. Proceedings of the Structures Congress: Structural
Engineering in the 21st Century, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1999, pp. 1107-1110.
4. Hartnagel, B.A. and M.G. Baker. Strain Measurements on Traffic Signal Mast Arms.
Proceedings of the Structures Congress: Structural Engineering in the 21st Century, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 1999, pp. 1111-1114.
5. Kashar, L., M.R. Nester, J.W. Jones, M. Hariri and S. Friezner. Analysis of the
Catastrophic Failure of the Support Structure of a Changeable Message Sign.
Proceedings of the Structures Congress: Structural Engineering in the 21st Century, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 1999, pp. 1115-1118.
6. Alampalli, S. Wind Loads on Untethered-Span-Wire Traffic-Signal Poles. FHWA
Report NY/SR-97/126, Transportation Research and Development Bureau, New York
State Department of Transportation, 1997.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 7. Johns, K.W. and R.J. Dexter. Truck-Induced Loads on Highway Sign Support Structures.
Proceedings of the Structures Congress: Structural Engineering in the 21st Century, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 1999, pp. 1103-1106.
8. Cook, R.A., D. Bloomquist and M.A. Kalajian. Mechanical Damping System for Mast
Arm Traffic Signal Structure. Proceedings of the Structures Congress: Structural
Engineering in the 21st Century, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1999, pp. 1099-1102.
9. Kaczinski, M.R., R.J. Dexter and J.P. Van Dien. Fatigue-Resistant Design of
cantilevered Signal and Light Supports. NCHRP Report 412, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
10. Fouad, F.H., E. A. Calvert and E. Nunez. Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaries and Traffic Signals. NCHRP Report 411, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
11. Yang, J. Stability Analysis & Reliability-Based Assessment of Truss Highway Sign
Support Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, University Of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 2000.
12. DeWolf, J.T. and J. Yang, Stability Analysis of Truss Type Highway Sign Support
Structures. Report JHR 00-280, Connecticut Transportation Institute, University Of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 2000.
13. Hartz, B.J. Matrix Formulation of Structural Stability Problems. Journal of the Structural
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 91, ST 6,
December, 1965, pp. 141-157.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 TABLES

1. Effective Length Factors, K, Determined From System Stability Analysis

2. Design Example Comparisons

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 FIGURES

1. Unreinforced Truss Supported Sign

2. Detail of Connection Between Diagonals and Chord

3. Connection Detail for Reinforced Truss, Showing Stiffener

4. Typical Truss Support

5. Design Example Sign

6. Truss Support for Design Example Sign

7. Connection Between Horizontal Truss and Vertical Supporting Truss

8. Detail Showing Typical U-Bolt Used in Connection Between Horizontal Truss and
Vertical Supporting Truss

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Table 1 Effective Length Factors, K, Determined With System Stability Analysis

Cross-Sectional
Dimensions of Chords K K
In Vertical Truss For Out-of- For Out-of- K
Plane Behavior Plane Behavior For In-Plane
Diameter Thickness (Rigid Top (Pinned Top Behavior
(inch) (inch) Connection) Connection)

8.625 0.322 0.87 1.44 0.56

8.625 0.500 0.88 1.44 0.68

8.625 0.875 0.88 1.44 0.84

10.750 0.365 0.88 1.44 0.84

10.750 0.500 0.88 1.45 0.97

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Table 2 Design Example Comparisons

Connection at Top
Between Horizontal Wind Chord
Cases K values K out-of-plane CSR
Truss and Pressure Stiffeners
Supporting Truss

1 Pinned Old No Assumed 2.00 0.97

2 Pinned New No Assumed 2.00 2.00

3 Pinned New Yes Assumed 2.00 0.71

4 Pinned New No Exact 1.44 1.01

5 Fixed New No Exact 0.88 0.99

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 1 Unreinforced Truss Supported Sign

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 2 Detail of Connection Between Diagonals and Chord

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 3 Connection Detail for Reinforced Truss, Showing Stiffener

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 4 Typical Truss Support

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 5 Design Example Sign

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 6 Design Example Truss Support

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 7 Connection Between Horizontal Truss and Vertical Supporting Truss

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
 Figure 8 Detail Showing Typical U-Bolt Used in Connection Between Horizontal Truss and
Vertical Supporting Truss

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.